A recent Federal Circuit decision held that the Agency breached a settlement
agreement it made with its former employee.

The former employee, a USPS worker, was terminated for “Failure to
Maintain a Regular Work Schedule/Tardy”. In fact, the Plaintiff
suffered from Sleep Apnea, a disability that affected his breathing and
sleeping and caused him to frequently arrive late for work.

In settlement of his removal appeal to the MSPB, the Postal Service agreed
to provide 3 documents to help the former employee apply for disability
retirement. However, they failed to provide the documents until well after
that deadline had passed. (Under OPM regulations, an applicant for disability
must file for retirement within one year of his separation from the government
in order to be eligible.)

The Plaintiff appealed to the MSPB, claiming that the Agency did breach
the settlement agreement. The MSPB found in favor of the Agency the Federal
Circuit in turn found that the Postal Service had breached the agreement.

Interestingly, the Postal Service tried to argue that the former employee
should have filed something – even an incomplete application –
with OPM, in order to avoid losing eligibility. The Federal Circuit didn’t
buy the argument – according to the Court, he would still have been
irreparably harmed by the government’s breach. Apparently, Agency
Counsel did not realize that federal disability retirement benefits do
not begin to accrue until the application is complete.

The plaintiff received a new removal date so he could make a timely application
for disability retirement, as well as back-pay and other remedies.

If you believe the Agency has breached a settlement agreement in your case,
or if you need help reducing a settlement agreement to writing, it is
best to have a Federal Employee lawyer review your case.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.